Check it ou! I’ve been interviewed.
Check it ou! I’ve been interviewed.
[I]n a world without religion there would be no such thing as blasphemy. In fact, the very notion of offending religious sensibilities can only be erected under the umbrella of religious faith. Outside of religion, however, blasphemy is by and large a meaningless concept.
“The judiciary has historically done an unsatisfactory job in building up a record based on public policy interests in order to sustain criminal bigamy laws against Free Exercise challenges. Instead, the courts have relied on a “public morality” rhetoric to justify the criminalization of polygamy.”
In Kayt Sukel’s investigation into the subject, she found that human monogamy was much less strict than people think it is, and that overall humans tend to be much more promiscuous. Without cultural restraints, it is assumed that human societies would be more promiscuous than not. In fact, this is represented quite well in chapter six where Sukel shows that our brains our fine-tuned for porn (and that we–both men and women–literally desire the act of sex with others, even if we merely fantasize about it, regardless of how monogamous we may think we are).
Additionally, a recent study from New York University and Cornell University has shown that promiscuous types enjoy casual sex more readily, and that casual sex actually has far more positive benefits than people commonly think–so much so that the positive outweighs the negative–making it highly likely that engaging in casual sex is good for you as it impacts your life in positive ways.
An open marriage model would allow for these positive benefits from enjoying casual sex whereas stricter monogamous marriages would not.
There are of course many more reasons why I think open marriage and polyamorous relationships make more sense logically, but perhaps this will be a discussion for another time. Until then, what are your thoughts about alternative relationship styles and marriage models? Should they be illegal? Or should they just be allowed as alternative practices, as seen in the SyFy channels Battlestar Galactica spin-off series Caprica–where polyamory was heavily featured? Let me know in the comments section down below.
“…in the case of Sunshine, the science was butchered so badly that it actually affected my suspension of disbelief. Some of it goes back to long-overused tropes, like freezing almost immediately when you’re exposed to the vacuum of space, or a big whooshing decompression that sucks everyone into space. My good friend and comrade in blog, the mighty Tristan Vick, remarked that he loved Sunshine and told me it was ‘the most scientifically accurate movie I’ve ever seen.’”
“In one scene, a few of the astronauts have to decompress an airlock and shoot 20 meters through space to another airlock — but only one of them has a suit. When the airlock is blown, they’re sucked out in a big whoosh. This would not happen. If a spaceship decompressed, the force of decompression might suck out some loose objects, but you’d just sit there and die of vacuum exposure. This is especially true in an airlock, which doesn’t contain nearly enough air to create much of any force.”
“After Chris Evans’ character is exposed to the vacuum of space and survives, he just goes on with the suspenseful progression of the film. In reality he’d need to spend time in a barometric chamber. He’d have joint pain and move slowly. And he’d have horrible burns from cosmic radiation.”
“[Y]ou seem to neglect to look at all the science they get dead on. Which is a lot, actually. The reason I say it is one of the most scientifically accurate films is not for the amount it gets wrong, which is no more than any other big budget scifi, but for how much it actually gets right, which is way more than nearly every other scifi film out there.”
“What does it get right? I mean seriously, aside from them wearing spacesuits in space and requiring a spacecraft to travel in space, I don’t really see what they got right.”
1. The gold suits and the gold heat shields of the ships. Polished gold is the best heat shield possible given our current technology.
2. The joint, international venture of a massive space program like this would require astronauts from all the major countries which supported and funded this particular space program, just like our real life International Space Station. Which is why the director Danny Boyle wanted an multi-racial cast, to more accurately depict how real science organizations and real scientists would be working together at an international level to get such a large scale project off the ground (literally).
3. All the lighting in the Icarus is done as self-contained on the set. That is, all the lighting in the movie is real lighting from the Icarus set, not stage lighting.
4. The space sounds in the film are real space sounds received from space that were captured by a Midwestern university were incorporated into the sound design.
5. Aside from the freezing in space bit, the airlock scene is actually much more accurate than Mike gives it credit for.
6. The actors all went through basic astronaut boot camp including zero gravity flights on an acrobatic plane. Danny Boyle also took the cast onto a nuclear submarine to they would know how to move about crammed spaces and living quarters. This helped the actors make the zero gravity scenes and life aboard the Icarus 2 as realistic as scientifically possible.
7. The design of the Icarus 1 and 2 are done realistically using all of the technology available to us today.
8. The corpses of burn victims in the film were modeled on the Pompeii victims from the Mount Vesuvius eruption, to be as scientifically accurate as possible to those burnt alive by extremely high heat exposure.
9. The original storyboards depicted that the artificial gravity on the ship was due to the massiveness of the bomb, and when they were on Icarus 2 all the gravity pulled in the direction of the payload. This idea was scrapped however, because it would have made filming too difficult to maintain such scientific accuracy throughout the entire film. The fact that they included it up till shooting, however, shows that the filmmakers were aiming for better scientific accuracy than typically seen with other films of this genre (which seems to disprove Mike’s feeling that they weren’t trying with the whole artificial gravity thing).
10. Having a psychologist on board a long duration space flight is something NASA has considered necessary for long term space travel (it is also one of the required accademic requirements for astronauts).“Behavioral, social, environmental, and industrial psychology can make valuable contributions to space missions. The challenge lies in applying the accumulated knowledge of these disciplines in new and more intense ways. The fundamental space program objectives include: (1) ensuring the physical safety of a space facility from human error or aberrant behavior, and (2) maximizing individual and group productivity. Psychology already has made a remarkable start in the direction of assuring more effective human performance in a variety of applied settings by precisely manipulating schedules of reinforcement and punishment (4).” (See full article here)
11. Captain Kaneda getting fried like an ant under a magnifying lense on a sunny day was fairly accurate. Especially considering he was getting fried by the sun from every which way, thanks to the heat shield’s reflection and amplification of the sun (sun death x2).
12. Capa’s initial sense of claustrophobia seems something even experienced deep sea divers experience from time to time, so his constant struggle with it seems not only accurate to the environmental conditions he had to endure, but to his human psychology.
13. The idea of the terrarium, using plants, for not only food but as an oxygen producer and natural filter for the long duration in space, whether on interstellar missions, space stations, or moon bases was highly accurate to proposals made by NASA.
“Nobody could survive for seven years with second- or third-degree burns all over their body without intensive medical care. The surviving captain is portrayed not only as having burns all over his body, but apparently having super strength, a horrifying ghostly deep voice, and cannot be seen clearly for reasons that are unexplained. The effect is without a doubt very cool and it works from a dramatic standpoint, but it’s like Danny Boyl (sic) couldn’t decide whether to make the film a believable science fiction movie or a supernatural horror flick. It casts shades of Event Horizon, but at least that movie had a clear explanation for why shit was getting scary.”
Having spent so much time in Japan, one of the things that I find fascinating is how much the concept of death, especially related to Buddhist observances, makes up such a profound part of the cultural identity.
Even the beloved picnics under the fading cherry tree blossoms is a sanguine reminder that our time on earth is fleeting.
In fact, this notion is so ingrained in Japanese culture that the ancient samurai would embroider the patterns of cherry tree blossoms into their armor and ceremonial garb as symbols of a swift, fleeting, life. It was viewed as a glorious and noble thing to be born, live well, and die. It was what put such a precedent on living a life of virtue, of being upright and just, and not wasting a single moment–for every moment is fleeting–every moment is slipping through the sands of time.
None of this everlasting life nonsense.
It is why, I think, funerals in Japan are larger than weddings. Funerals can cost upwards of 20 and 30 thousand U.S. dollars. It’s a massive ceremony. It’s the only time you will see all of your relatives. It’s important to remember the lives of those who have passed through the veil into the unknown darkness that lies beyond.It serves a reminder that although our memory may live on after we are gone, we certainly won’t.
I find it consoling, because it lessens the fear of death by making it something beautiful–a part of the journey–a nice book end to a life, rather than the beginning to some new life I never asked for or wanted.
Learning to respect other people’s beliefs is often the catalyst which forces you to re-examine your own. It’s only after you have stepped outside of your inherited worldview, and experienced a differing worldview, can you truly begin to see it for what it is. This can be a daunting task, because you may come to discover that everything you thought you knew was merely an illusion.
Japan enjoys full religious freedom based on Article 20 of its Constitution. Upper estimates suggest that 84–96 percent of the Japanese population subscribe to Buddhism or Shinto, including a large number of followers of a syncretism of both religions. However, these estimates are based on people affiliated with a temple, rather than the number of true believers. Other studies have suggested that only 30 percent of the population identify themselves as belonging to a religion. According to Edwin Reischauer and Marius Jansen, some 70–80% of the Japanese regularly tell pollsters they do not consider themselves believers in any religion.
So the veil of paper over the Shinto shrine is to ensure a lasting peace between Shintoism and Buddhism. But such a belief could only arise if the Shinto gods and Buddhist gods all played together on the same playing field, rather than as separate religions. That is to say, there is enough syncretism to ensure that specific religious observances were developed especially to take into consideration both religious points of view since there was a mingling between the two.
Shrines weren’t of course completely immune to change, and in fact show various influences, particularly that of Buddhism, a cultural import which provided much of Shinto architecture’s vocabulary. Therōmon (楼門 tower gate?),[note 5] the haiden, the kairō (回廊 corridor?), the tōrō, or stone lantern, and the komainu, or lion dogs, (see below for an explanation of these terms) are all elements borrowed from Buddhism.
At least, this is the process as such. But such syncretism can be seen in everyday customs and practices. I’ll use a real world example which I am sure many who know Japanese culture well will be familiar with.
The only meaning my religious beliefs, customs and practices had was what I brought to them.
I am so lucky then, that I came to Japan! It helped me grow in ways I could never have even imagined. It helped me to see the world through a fresh lens. I gained a new perspective, and in the process, part of me became assimilated by Japanese culture and I will be the first to admit I am better off for it.
*Just a quick side note: Although I think I would have remained a Christian for a longer time if I hadn’t come to Japan, I do, however, think that there were other mitigating factors that would have triggered my gradual crawl toward atheism as well. In my mind though, it was the unique challenges Japanese culture posed to me that hastened my transition from pious minded believer to secular minded atheist.
Corporal punishment, when used lovingly and properly, is beneficial to a child because it is in harmony with nature itself. Consider the purpose of minor pain in a child’s life and how he learns from it. Suppose two-year-old Peter pulls on a tablecloth and with it comes a vase of roses that cracks him between the eyes. From this pain, he learns that it is dangerous to pull on the tablecloth unless he knows what sits on it. When he touches a hot stove, he quickly learns that heat must be respected. If he lives to be a hundred years old, he will never again reach out and touch the red-hot coils of a stove. The same lesson is learned when he pulls the doggy’s tail and promptly gets a neat row of teeth marks across the back of his hand, or when he climbs out of his high chair when Mom isn’t looking and discovers all about gravity.
During the childhood years, he typically accumulates minor bumps, bruises, scratches, and burns, each one teaching him about life’s boundaries. Do these experiences make him a violent person? No! The pain associated with these events teaches him to avoid making the same mistakes again. God created this mechanism as a valuable vehicle for instruction.
When a parent administers a reasonable spanking in response to willful disobedience, a similar nonverbal message is being given to the child. He must understand that there are not only dangers in the physical world to be avoided. He should also be wary of dangers in his social world, such as defiance, sassiness, selfishness, temper tantrums, behavior that puts his life in danger, that which hurts others, etc. The minor pain associated with this deliberate misbehavior tends to inhibit it, just as discomfort works to shape behavior in the physical world. Neither conveys hatred. Neither results in rejection. Neither makes the child more violent.
The American Psychoanalytic Association (APsaA) condemns the use of physical punishment (corporal punishment) in the discipline of children and recommends alternative methods that enhance children’s capacities to develop healthy emotional lives, tolerate frustration, regulate internal tensions, and behave in socially acceptable ways.
Whereas the resort to corporal punishment tends to reduce the likelihood of employing more effective, humane, and creative ways of interacting with children;
Whereas it is evident that socially acceptable goals of education, training, and socialization can be achieved without the use of physical violence against children, and that children so raised, grow to moral and competent adulthood;
Whereas corporal punishment intended to influence “undesirable responses” may create in the child the impression that he or she is an “undesirable person”; and an impression that lowers self-esteem and may have chronic consequences;
Whereas research has shown that to a considerable extent children learn by imitating the behavior of adults, especially those they are dependent upon; and the use of corporal punishment by adults having authority over children is likely to train children to use physical violence to control behavior rather than rational persuasion, education, and intelligent forms of both positive and negative reinforcement;
Whereas research has shown that the effective use of punishment in eliminating undesirable behavior requires precision in timing, duration, intensity, and specificity, as well as considerable sophistication in controlling a variety of relevant environmental and cognitive factors, such that punishment administered in institutional settings, without attention to all these factors, is likely to instill hostility, rage, and a sense of powerlessness without reducing the undesirable behavior;
Therefore, be it resolved that the American Psychological Association opposes the use of corporal punishment in schools, juvenile facilities, child care nurseries, and all other institutions, public or private, where children are cared for or educated (Conger, 1975).
Corporal punishment, when used lovingly and properly, is beneficial to a child because it is in harmony with nature itself.
“Until researchers, clinicians, and parents can definitively demonstrate the presence of positive effects of corporal punishment, including effectiveness in halting future misbehavior, not just the absence of negative effects, we as psychologists can not responsibly recommend its use…”
When a parent administers a reasonable spanking in response to willful disobedience, a similar nonverbal message is being given to the child. He must understand that there are not only dangers in the physical world to be avoided. … In fact, children who have experienced corporal punishment from loving parents do not have trouble understanding its meaning.
“In fact, children who have experienced corporal punishment from loving parents…”
“Psychologists who are concerned with children’s development promoting effective parenting would be remiss were they to advocate or justify spanking in the face of the evidence… This review reflected the growing body of evidence indicating that corporal punishment does no good and may even cause harm.”
“I really think it’s crazy that we hit our kids. It really is. Here’s the crazy part about it. Kids are the only people in the world that you’re allowed to hit. Do you realize that? They’re the most vulnerable and they’re the most destroyed by being hit, but it’s totally OK to hit them. And they’re the only ones! If you hit a dog, you go to jail for that!”
1. It is reasonable to believe that which is true.
2. It is true that God exists.
3. Therefore it is reasonable to believe in God.
1. It is reasonable to believe that which is true.
2. It is true that all women love Tristan Vick.
3. Therefore it is reasonable to believe that all women love Tristan Vick.